My Prediction Regarding New Space Telescope That Will See Back to 100 Million Years From the Big Bang

by Sea Breeze 140 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Anony Mous

  This is exactly why I absolutely hate media sensationalism of scientific discoveries. I understand it, I worked in academia and we had a dedicated full time media person just to hype the latest discovery for the next funding round. That person is an empty headed bobble head with no education translating dry, slow scientific progress papers into some super-exciting Twitter and TV story.

  Read the papers and understand what you are saying. Sadly it is a lot more boring and less exciting than they media makes it out to be, the formation of structures well before anticipated is not what you think it is. The early universe looked slightly different than one model predicted, but the evidence underpins the overall theory instead of contradicting it, there was no fully constructed universe as Sea Breeze predicted. You’re just looking at dust and debris that is clumping up a bit faster.

  Basically you’re looking at the remnants of an explosion and surprised that things are being swept together by the wind a bit faster than anticipated. But nowhere do I see evidence of a static universe.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  The early universe looked slightly different than one model predicted

  @anonyMous, I appreciate your perspective.

  But I do think it fair to say that it looked quite different than expected. The Space Telescope Science Institute leads the science and mission operations for the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). (This is a quote from them (not some bobble-head) :

  “We thought the early universe was this chaotic place where there’s all these clumps of star formation, and things are all a-jumble,” Coe said.

  Here's another astrophysicist quote:
  
  “With the resolution of James Webb, we are able to see that galaxies have disks way earlier than we thought they did,” says Allison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. That’s a problem, she says, because "it contradicts earlier theories of galaxy evolution".

  But it doesn't contradict a creationist model at all.

  The experts are saying that there is hardly an empty space to be found.

  
  
  

  Just a week after the release of the first science images from JWST, astronomers were reporting the detection of galaxies at redshift 13, equating to about 300 million years after the Big Bang. Now, a new wave of scientific results is smashing past that record, with some astronomers reporting the detection of galaxies up to a redshift of 20. If true, then we are seeing these galaxies as they existed about 200 million years after the Big Bang. - Space.com

  The problem is that there are galaxies everywhere they are not supposed to be. It is impossible for stars, much less galaxies to form this early according to the BB model. The reality is of course that physics do not allow for them to form on their own at all.... but that is a different topic. - "Decades of observations have yielded a variety of empirical rules about how it [star formation] operates, but at present we have no comprehensive, quantitative theory."
  
  All this is a very big deal.
  
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Sea Breeze, the post you made, regarding the quote you made from the Institute, is interesting and informative.

  Anony Mous, your post about "the remnants of an explosion" is interesting and informative.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  DJW / Anony Mouse:
  
  The BB theory has a history of failed predictions and only explains about 5% of the universe according to its own theory. That alone is pretty shocking. So, it's really not much of a theory when dissected. This former engineer with the U.S. military's space program, breaks it down bit by bit:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQQsb5H3xLI&ab_channel=ItHasBeenWritten
• 

  Diogenesister

  Nonny This is exactly why I absolutely hate media sensationalism of scientific discoveries. I understand it, I worked in academia and we had a dedicated full time media person just to hype the latest discovery for the next funding round.

  I would imagine this is the case. The data will be unintelligible to most people so they put it into simple to understand terms, which can end up kind of being incorrect.
  
  
• 

  Sea Breeze

  Another Recent Article:

  "So in the in the first four days after the Webb images were released, we wrote these papers, and we realized that GNZ11 wasn't unique — there were others of these very bright, very luminous galaxies, which we interpreted as being unusually massive. Then, within weeks, there was another one even further back in time, closer to the Big Bang, that was still very massive. That has really been a surprise.....

  What we need to do now is go in and look at those objects in more detail, see if we can learn more about what's actually in that galaxy. What the stars are like, whether there's lots of smaller stars that contribute a lot of mass. Theorists are now wondering: how do you build a galaxy like this so quickly, and does it have a black hole that's been building extremely rapidly in there as well"?

  
  
• 

  waton

  everything in the universe seems to be self organizing restrained by the existing laws, why would that be different at the Big Baginning?
• 

  Sea Breeze

  When you ask a million-of-years proponent where all the stars come from, they say from other stars of course.

  Reminds me of the Steve Martin skit where he expalins how to make a million dollars. "First, you start with a millioin dollars". (laughter)

  So, we are supposed to believe the the stars we see now are third generation stars. The reason is that the stars we observe have more elements than just hydrogen and helium, which would have been about the only elements present in a BB scenario.

  So where did the stars come from? First, you start with the original generation III stars.... (laughter begins). So, the starting point for the secularist in explaining where the stars come from is other stars. In other words, "First you start with a star".... How convenient. Really?

  Recent articles also confirm that the "early" universe Webb is seeing does not conform to a BB model:

  1. the James Webb Space Telescope has sighted two of the most distant galaxies ever — and delivered a brilliant surprise. These galaxies are far brighter than anyone expected, challenging our view of how the cosmos took shape in the aftermath of the big bang

  2. “We discovered there are many more distant galaxies than we had been expecting,” Treu said. “Somehow the universe has managed to form galaxies faster and earlier than we thought.”

  3. The early images and data from the telescope brought home “how quickly our understanding of galaxies is changing,” said Jeyhan Kartaltepe, associate professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology

  All very predictible, if you are a creationist.
• 

  waton

  The first "picture" of the earliest universe after the Big Beginning was the Background Radiation showing up in the Bell Lab horn in New Jersey. It sunk the steady state theory of Hoyle etal. so far

  We have seen pretty pictures from the JW telescope, , the real work is yet to come.

  Showing or not metal rich stars in the earliest universal time, the forming of resonance based structures, aka the voice of the deity.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  We have seen pretty pictures from the JW telescope, , the real work is yet to come.

  I agree. And I fully intend on watching this closely.

  Because secular cosmologists find a universe they cannot explain with the BB theory (or the steady-state) theory, they make the incredible claim that the trillions of stars and galaxies that we observe are not original. They imagine that there has been a least three universes that have run out of gas, exploded, and reconstituted themselves into what we now see.

  All this without a shred of evidence of the hypothetical original stars.... no matter how "far back" they look.
  
  This is the real elephant in the room no one is talking about. The perfectly shaped spiral galaxies observed from the dawn of time, together with their brigntness, size and frequency is just icing on the cake for the Creationist.